Building bridges

Where Meyer is now more confident in including a number of youngsters for the upcoming test series against England, his most important decision remains who he will select as skipper.

Injuries to key senior players and problems associated with getting overseas based players released in time for tests has prompted a change in thinking for Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer’s around the squad he will select for the 3-test series against England.

Meyer confirmed to the press that his ‘initial’ team and squad he had in mind for the tests has changed considerably over the last couple of weeks and that he has gained a lot more faith in the younger, less experienced players following his Springbok planning camps.

This will no doubt come as a relief to many supporters who were slightly stunned when it was revealed that Meyer was looking to bring back a host of players from Japan and Europe to take on the Poms including convincing Victor Matfield to come out of retirement to lead the side.

It is understandable that Meyer wanted to go into his first test series as Bok coach with some confidence where bringing in players he has a strong bond with and worked with before with some success would have given him that.

The planning camps however seemed to give Meyer some re-assurance that investing in a young, more diverse group of players than he initially planned might not be such a bad idea or as big a risk – and given his statements on the candidates he is considering to take on a captaincy and leadership roles in the team it would seem he might have had a slight change of heart in this area too.

Upon his appointment Meyer made it clear that he is well aware of the perceptions surrounding his affiliation with the Bulls rugby union given the long and successful history he had with them. He went as far as to say that when he will need to make a 50/50 call on two players and one of them happens to be from the Bulls, they might actually get the shorter end of the stick. The assurance this gave supporters was shattered when it became public knowledge that Meyer is seriously considering bringing Matfield out of retirement to lead the side on a temporary basis.

A week ago I wrote how Meyer must be careful not to divide public and media support through his actions or words because in South African rugby, perceptions sometimes means more than actual results. It is this pressure that could possible have forced Meyer to approach the national planning camps differently, and the results are positive.

Apart from a fresh approach to possible include more young or inexperienced players, Meyer is also weighing up his captaincy options. It has been reported that Meyer has been quite impressed with the franchise captains he has worked with in the planning camps so far feeling a lot more confident in possible selecting his leadership core from players currently playing at franchises.

Names that Meyer has mentioned as good leaders include the likes of Schalk Burger, Jean de Villiers, Pierre Spies, Keegan Daniel, Josh Strauss and Adriaan Strauss – and it’s the latter’s name you should take note of.

Schalk Burger is suffering from a long-term injury which is likely to rule him out of the England series and it is also well known that Meyer quite fancies the option of Frans Steyn at inside centre which might make it difficult to select Jean in a captaincy role. In Spies Meyer has a player he knows well but it is only his first season as captain. The main problem he will have with Josh Strauss and Keegan Daniel is justifying a starting position for them in the Springbok team which leaves a player Meyer has known and rated for some time, Adriaan Strauss.

A private conversation I had recently centered around the importance not only of the public buying into Heyneke Meyer’s vision as Bok coach, but also how the players, specifically non-Bulls players buys into an all-Bulls coaching team’s vision. Sure, they are all professionals as some may argue, but they are also only human and if they walk into an environment knowing that a certain section of players (Bulls players) have an established relationship and level of trust with the management staff, you will naturally feel somewhat disadvantaged.

For my money, choosing a team or squad for the England test series that rewards current form and loyalty to players playing in South African and Super Rugby will go a long way to keep the supporting public happy. Choosing a captain, and a fairly neutral one at that in the form of Adriaan Strauss who is not only a great leader, but playing some of the best rugby of his life justifying selection above captaincy for the England series, will go a long way in building trust amongst the players irrespective of which union they represent.

Die Burger has it as his grandson.
Piet Spiere born 1935.
Played his 14 tests at TH 1958-61,
retired age 25. Died 1996 aged 60.
Jan Pickard’s grandson now also
playing and Jan was from the
same period.

Craven:
Piet “Spiere” du Toit was one of the strongest men to represent the Springboks in the front row. He did not look all that strong but, by gad, he was incredible.

Daniel and the Lions guy probably won’t make the team.
Burger is injured.
If he wants to play Frans Steyn then de Villiers’ place is not assured.
Strauss in front of Bismarck is hard sell. Specially with spot needed for Chilliboy.

That leaves only Spies.
Or a player who is not a captain in his team.
Or a retired captain.

Cape and Natal?
Your bias is understandable as you are
a Bulls supporter. They are at least as
prejudiced as the other two.
Dunno about the Cheetahs.
Lions not guilty, as they have no player
to be prejudiced about.

* Do you believe I, or any other ‘Cape affiliated’ individual wants Meyer to fail?

* Do you believe I, or (read above) individual believe Meyer was the wrong choice as coach?

* Do you think, just for a second, that having been part of and knowing how the media and public reacts to common, often (if not mostly) misguided perceptions, we actually hope and pray that Meyer, the most qualified coach we appointed since re-admission, is not subjected to the political and provincial bullshit every other Springbok coach was tested on, and failed at, thanks to media hype (which results in public thought and fact) just once?

One of those answers has a ‘yes’ to it. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which one.

I read a funny thing the other day. Jake White as a normal human being, having a beer chilling on the couch supports the Bulls – yet, throughout the duration of his time in charge every single Bulls supporter I know believed he was the anti-Bulls-Christ…

The incomprehensible thing was that at that time the mid 80’s WP dominance was at an end.

The country was coming off yet another period of Bulls dominance which included wins in 1987, 1988, a draw in 1989, a loss in 1990 and 1991 (in 1992 Natal and Transvaal competed for the final though), so a “bias” would be damned understandable given that the side Williams was biased in favour of had competed in 5 consecutive finals winning three, drawing one and losing one…

Personally I have no doubt that any other ‘provincially’ affiliated coach would have suffered the same fate – even Smal who last coached in WP at the turn of the decade.

Bud it’s the nature of the beast. We have been spared the direct provincialism arguments for the last decade thanks to the fact that Jake and PDV never coached a major union.

Unfortunately blogs weren’t around in Harry, Strools and Mallet’s days but from my braai-fire chats provincialism ran riot back then with every decision they made.

My first words on learning Meyer accepted the position was ‘he is out of his fucking mind’. The only reason for me saying it was because I knew what he will be ‘judged’ on as coach which in a 80% likelyhood will destroy the reputation he has worked fucking hard on creating in the last 10 years.

For once I would love for a coach to give the media (and fans) in this country the finger.

You can quote me on this today – I think Meyer will fail not because of his results or how good a coach he is, but because he will be tried, judged and executed by the media.

2 years from now I will remind you of this – if he lasts the 4 I will write a similar post stating exactly that again.

Interesting tidbit I picked up
re the 1951/52 side:
Sport Pienaar forbade Craven to
coach, he was to do correpondence
and other menial tasks.
Basil Kenyon then insisted that Doc
do the coaching.
The rest, as they say in the comics,
is history.

I’d be extremely surprised if any Bok coach ever had to publicly pledge a bias against any group of players just to reassure another set of fans and their media.

It was a ridiculous, offensive and unprecedented litmus test.

Even more offensive to call it “shattered” because he dared to consider bringing some players back.
No left field selections. All regulars in both White’s and De Villiers’ teams, who also brought international and retired players back. No controversy in that. Where was the controversy then? In them being Bulls?

If that disqualifies a player then failure is assured. And those that kicked up the fuss and created the epitaphs like “Blou Bokke” must know it.

Yes he was crazy to take the job but he has it now. There is wide spread agreement that he is able and qualified. We should call out these destructive forces for what they are and not aid and abet them any further.

Aiding and abetting is what I read in this “Building Bridges” article and what I object to.

Where were the objections against White and PDV for their unshakeable faith in certain players?

Did you read this blog as just one example in the last 6 years?

White could never win because he never coached a Super Rugby team, PDV could never win because he was a clown and a political pawn. It was excuses that could easily stick to them. The easiest excuse that WILL stick to Meyer is because of his Blue past.

There is no difference. And I would suggest you get used to it before it gives you a stroke.

Like it or not the rugby landscape in SA has many, many naysayers. The identity of the naysayers is split into 2 groups, those that are naysayers for the sake of it, these are fairly static in their identity.

The 2nd group of naysayers depends on who the coach is at the time, the political stance and their provincial view point.

Frankly, I don’t care who the coach is, as long as he is doing his best and getting results.

I’ve said this to you before, to dominate we need the buy in of all provinces from school boy rugby upwards and no provincialism. Th AB’s are successful because the national coach is welcome to all and any trainings from Super franchises downwards. Most of their coaches are working from the same play sheet in broad terms.

The Bok coach cannot do this by himself, it seems that HM is trying his best to instigate this, but he will be dragged down by all the other crabs in the bucket I fear.

I have to say i’m surprised at this. Made a very interesting read but as an All Black supporter I would be very surprised to see Strauss made captain. As a player who is not considered a first choice player (even if he has been in good form), it seems to me like repeating a mistake DeVilliers made over the last few years in holding back DuPlessis for John Smit.

The logical selection to me would be either Spies or DeVilliers as a stopgap for a couple of years.

As for bringing Matfield back…he is a true legend of the game, but I think SA have enough talent to cover his loss.

Let Etzebeth and Bekker have the time to develop a similary destructive partnership to the one Botha and Matfield had.

By the way guys I have my own rugby blog too if anyone is interested. I write about South African rugby as well as rugby from around the world so please visit! Cheers!

I agree that Strauss is a good player. Some may prefer him to Bismark, others may prefer Bismark to Strauss.

The fact that one has to ask who is better though
opens up the idea of strauss as captain to criticism in my opinion.

Most captains are a sure bet to get in the side…as there is no one else who compares in their position.

Look at McCaw, Warburton, O’Driscoll etc.

That is why I would go with Spies personally but I trust Meyer’s judgement and I think he will do a great job. It’s not unheard of that someone who was on the fringes becomes Captain…just look at England this year and the selection of Chris Robshaw.

I didn’t realise their was this much debate around the selection! Thought it would be far more straightforward, but I suppose you guys can be quite parrochial for your regions and the players that come from them!

In the case of White and De Villiers appointment criticism was quite rightful given that both had ZERO effective experience at even Super rugby. White’s one short tenure was as part of a disastrous Sharks campaign where the management, coaches and players were at each other’s throats.

It was quite justified to question their credentials to lead a major national side.

The last time any coach was accused of provincialism in SA was poor old Ian MacIntosh, back in 1993 / 1994…

This is the first time in 19 years a coach of ours has been accused of being provincialist EVEN BEFORE HE HAS SELCTED A SINGLE PLAYER.

Fyndraai is 100% correct but you still do not see it. Even your response to him is shocking… especially for someone usually as balanced as you. Basically you’re saying that PDV and JW* were criticised on different grounds so it is justifiable to criticise HM.

I recall that in 2004 certain journos (Dale Granger & the usual gang) said that Jake White was “too old” to be Bok coach… so yes criticism like that was unjustifiable and horribly unfair… but that cannot in any way make it justifiable to criticise HM unjustifiably and unfairly.

Again you have at no stage addressed the fact that you are standing for a Cape centrist media driven viewpoint that you’re all okay and happy for HM to succeed as long as he does what you tell him to do, like “be neutral and select Adriaan Strauss as skipper”.

As I asked above… the Bulls are presently effectively in joint second place on points in S15. What if the Stormers injuries affect their performance in the second third of the season and the Bulls storm into strength and dominate the competition? Is HM then justified in selecting large numbers of their players? Is that provincialism? Of course not, but the platform to squeal “Blue Bull!!!” has been laid… just in case the Boks do not win big.

Cheetah is correct in one thing.

We as South Africans have become far too used to being okay with not being the best team in the world as we were in pre professional days.

It is a post isolation onset thing that we can be okay with losing to Australia, New Zealand, France, England and even Ireland and Wales… these acceptances are shocking and unacceptable and stem in large part from the inferiority complex that ESSA media has fostered with us. It’s forever the professional Aussies, the rugby mad Kiwis, the champagne and anvil French, the rock hard English… all are better than us. That attitude has to be purged from our media and the fans who like to think it’s okay to lose. For the Boks… IT IS NOT OKAY TO LOSE … not ever.

And the New Zealanders have this attitude so we need to cultivate it too, if we want to play with them. That means not saying “good game” when we lose by two points against New Zealand in NZ…

There can be no excuses for failure from the media… we can give our opponents no quarter and no credit for a game well played.

It is in instilling nonsense like this that the attitude of “it’s okay to lose” has filtered from the media to the fans to the players. THAT attitude is un-South African… maybe ESSA but not South African.

All I read in the media is that Heynecke’s biggest test will be to fight the blue prejudice. No rugby commentary on him, no winning culture talks or pointing out the fact that he has called guys from the franschises together for planning camps on their bye weekends.

This is unheard of in SA rugby, a coach who approaches the game technically correct and very professional. No mention of this, or rather very little mention of this. It is much more fun to call him blue.

Morne you are sadly guilty of this as well. And trying to justify unfair judgement by calling on previous judgements of coaches is just plain silly. I have never heard you criticise a coach on anything other than ability before now. You prefer to point out where he’s coached, rather than point out how successfull he were at all teams he coached.

I suspect you do not want Heynecke to fail. But I also suspect you’d prefer him to be successfull with cape based players. For Heynecke sake I hope the Bulls start losing, cos heaven forbid they end top of the SA conference and Heynecke picks Bulls players that are on form. Forget the fact that the Bulls have shared dominance of bokteams with province and the sharks for the last Decade, it will be because of the fact Heynecke is ‘blue’.

How about highlighting the paragraph where I said it’s understandable that Meyer would want to surround himself with individuals he has built a strong bond and understanding with over the years?

Or how about highlighting the points I made in the pervious article stating quite clearly that his decisions (to want to bring back Vic, FDP and the rest) are justified?

You simply assume I am critical of Meyer where I quite simply state the obvious, like White, PDV and most Bok coaches before him there will come a time where he will face tremendous pressure for the media and public which will have little to do with on-field results but an easy, soft target and the softest and easiest target will be his long-standing affinity to the Bulls.

Is it justified?

It is just as justified as the soft, easy tag or target PDV had to endure the day he got appointed before he made ANY decision as the Bok coach being a political pawn.

Meyer himself admitted he knows this is a battle he will face. Journo’s from up North has gone on the defensive the moment the Vic story started doing the rounds.

Point is, I am quite simply stating the obvious when it comes to SA Rugby.

Meyer will be judged on issues outside what happens between the 4 white lines. If you take offence with me stating the obvious I cannot help you.

Fact remains, Bok coaches have lost their jobs because of public and media pressure – like it or not, it is something Meyer will have to acknowledge and know and learn how to deal with pretty damn quickly.

Do I want him to fail – don’t be stupid.

Do I believe he will fail if he ignores what I have stated in two columns I wrote – yes I do. That is SA Rugby. Like it or not, it is reality.

He may want to build a Springbok side based on his Bulls blueprint….and if that means the side is dominated by the Bulls that is his choice. They are still joint top of the south African conference after all!

The All Blacks had a similar situation a few years ago when 3 of the starting 15 were from the Crusaders. Everyone just accepted it because the Crusaders were the best at the time!

If South Africa want to be the best..they should just accept the team selection and all pull together and buy into Meyer’s concept.

It should not matter, but hang around until the day Meyer records his first loss which inevitably he will and entertain yourself with the kilometres of column space, comments and criticism highlighting his Bulls bias as the reason.

I do not offer many guarantees in the game of rugby – this one I will.

Exactly, I don’t really care where they come from. For me Bok rugby gets first place then lower levels. But working together is just not the South African way, no enough drama or enough to bitch about.

Bud we can choose to be blind of the challenges Meyer faces outside of results he will achieve or his successful past or face them.

I have seen too many coaches lose their way because of public and media pressure to ignore it and would rather want Meyer to face them head-on.

To my own detriment on this site (and elsewhere) I have supported all our coaches for ‘Rugby Reasons’ and continually had to defend my points/stance against non-rugby related issues.

I don’t see this being any different in the next 4 years.

I have no problem anyone taking exception to my personal opinion of Strauss being the best option as temp captain for the Boks against the Poms – but to suggest this relates into criticism of Meyer, the Bulls goes down the route of exactly what I stated above – non rugby bullshit clouding a simple point.

Perhaps it is my point that apart from being the best option in my view, it will also keep those naysayer brigade at bay is what is getting you folks hot under the collar…?

Two birds with one stone in my view – unless of course any of you reckon someone else is a better option for Bok skipper for the Pom test series?

I need your help. I have a kid in my team and to say he is terrified of contact, is the Mt Everest of understatements. He gets petrified.

I have done individual tackle and other contact drills with him, but he just will not commit to the the contact area. Even if the ball gets passed to him standing still he will take a step back and needless to say 99% of the time the result is a knock.

Tonight I setup game situations that effectively isolated him either in defense or attack and he could only get support in attack once he made contact. Result was an absolute disaater. The moment the ball got passed to him, he just threw it away in any bloody direction he could think off.

I am out of ideas, because I have never in my life seen a 7 year old boy this scared of a contact situation. Please, please, please can you offer me some advice. One of my other boys is autistic and playing sport for the first time in his life, and even he is more willing to engage a contact situation than this kid.

PDV had to fight these the day he got appointed – he handled it and went on to see out his contract.
—–
Only because there would have been a
political uproar second to none if
Saru had fired him.
Which was not the case when Mallett got
shown the door – even though he coached
the best post-isolation Bok side.

Boertjie, I think you can’t see the forest for the trees. i think the point you’re missing is that there was an uproar against PDV from day 1, the fact that he stayed the full term is immaterial, the fact that no matter what he did or didn’t do he was hounded. Justifiably so or not.

And your final paragraph is quite typical of a Bulls supporter looking to defend one of his own.

Morne

Look at your comments.

It is understandably offensive to you given the team you support and the coach in question, for me, it’s no different from the label PDV had to wear the moment he got appointed.

Meyer will wear the powder blue tag until the day he calls it a day.

You see … you’re doing nothing to allay the stupidity. And justifying it by referring to past coaches.

You can quote me on this today – I think Meyer will fail not because of his results or how good a coach he is, but because he will be tried, judged and executed by the media.

Like you’re doing already.

White could never win because he never coached a Super Rugby team, PDV could never win because he was a clown and a political pawn. It was excuses that could easily stick to them. The easiest excuse that WILL stick to Meyer is because of his Blue past.

There is no difference. And I would suggest you get used to it before it gives you a stroke.

Understandable but not justifiable given the provincialism of the appointments. What about it is understandable that he goes to the most successful union of the past decade with the best coaches and most professional development and player retention systems and records and head hunts from them… but no… just MUST emphasise that Pretoria link…

I said it’s understandable that Meyer would want to surround himself with individuals he has built a strong bond and understanding with over the years

___________________________________________

Just matter of interest I stand by what I told you before. Coaches in SA are ONLY judged by what happens between the white lines.

ONLY

Oh there are excuses that surface that are non related to their performance but these ONLY surface when their onfield performance lags. Aside from Deon of course but who knows what criteria women in menopause use to judge anything… have a look.

Ian Macintosh “Provincialism” but lost a series in NZ
Andre Markgraaf “Racist phone call” but first Bok coach to lose a series to NZ in SA
Nic Mallett “Expensive tickets” but actually 1999 was a nightmare season which included a to 0 loss to NZ
Harry Viljoen = out and out performance
Straueli “Staaldraad” but reality is quarter final exit from RWC
White saw out his tenure but reappointment lost due to political reasons I will concede. However 2004/2005 euphoria was almost lost in 2006 when he came to within a whisker of losing job after a nightmare season which included 50 point snotting from NZ and a 49-0 one to Aus and losing to poor England side at Twickenham.
De Villiers was given leeway in 2008, praised 2009 and in 2010 and 2011 almost fired because of poor rugby the team played right up to RWC 1/4 final.

So I underline Bok coaches get judged and hired and fired based on what happens on the field. The offield stuff comes into play BECAUSE OF poor onfield performance. In that respect SA fans are scrupulously fair. The media will judge on whatever the subeditor thinks sells papers.

Because it was clear to anyone that he
was a political appointment with little
rugby nous.
There is just no way he could have come
tops in the psychometrical tests – afterwards
everything pointed that he should have failed
the tests hands down.
Firing him would have hurt SA rugby just
too much. So what did Saru do? Have several
chats with him concerning his public
behaviour and statements.
This clown was an embarassment to SA rugby.
Full stop.

We were told he came out tops in the tests
:roll:
Everyone now wanting to have a go at Heyneke
at the time said he was by far the best
candidate. He also had the record to prove it.
Juniors do not equate seniors.
Snor lost it several times, also when he said
the whites can have their rugby back. Was that
an educated thing to say?
He also he used his public platform to plead support
for the ANC – something that is just not done, not
for any party. Public figures stay neutral.

Im going to give you a few pointers from the Bulletjie rugby coaching manual. These are contact confidence exercises, but you’ll need him to interact with other players.

Exercise 1, players are paired facing each other, note that players should be about same weight and height, players then lean on each others shoulders, keeping their arms straight. Players then try and push each other backwards.

Exercise 2, players of same height and build are paired of facing each other, crouching slightly forward they lean against each other’s handpalms, they should push at each other with slightly bent legs.

Exercise 3, players are paired and hook each other at the elbows. They then try to pull each other on a cue from the coach.

Next we go to the tackle.

Exercise 1, tackle from the side, on the knees. Two players, player A and B, of same height and build stand on their knees. Player A facing forward, player B facing player A, an arm lentgh away. On signal from coach, player A lifts and extends their arm to shoulder height of player B. Player B then executes tackle on player A.

This can then be adapted once he has enough confidence to player A running on his knees and then tackled. Also easy to work on technique this way. Hope it helps. All these exercises combined can be done as 3 to 5 min games and in tackle game 5 tackles then swop player A and B. This is how I do it.

Remember, amateur rugby you are a family first, and a rugby team second. Have this lad trust himself, you, and his team mates and rugby and his commitment to all aspects of the game will come naturally following this

All full and well that he trusts his team mates, but they don’t trust him because of his lack of commitment to the contact area. You know how kids are. Tact is not always their strong point. I don’t allow this whole “I am better” bullshit in the team, but they are not stupid.

Hahaha. I made him hooker, but the scrums are not really a contest at this age. Here you should actually make him 1st receiver and have the snot tackled out of him until he realises that it is better to control the contact instead of being at the opponents mercy.

Tackle bags give no indication of his reaction to contact, as their is no force to compete with. You find guys that tackle the shit out of a bag, but cant defend to save his life. Id definitely look at Ollies idea of wreslting. Let the kids wrestle for 5 min befor practise start, but do not play him at the rucks.

Also you would need help from his father, you mentioned only 60 minutes a week, that gives you no time at all to focus on individuals. Send exercise home with his dad, also ‘force’ him to play these games at school breaks. Do this by encouraging the group in your team to hang out at break and play these pushing type games.

Also try and excite him about defense and contact, as fear tends to dissapear when you actually enjoy it.

It is difficult, he’s a bit to young for sports pshychologist, but that is actually what he needs. What ever happened to TG who used to post? Now there is a man that could help you. Then maybe you should also ask his parents whether another sport isnt maybe what he wants to play, cos Ive found that the kids wo seem afraid, only play cos they feel forced by parents etc. It seems harsh but that is maybe the best way to go, allthough dadd might just kick your arse.

This is Australia. They are not allowed to play games like this at school. Shit didn’t you read the link I posted last week. One parent sueing the school and his daughers best friend because the friend hit his daugther with a tennis ball on the eye during training.

Best of all everybody are so pissed off at this kind of crap, but nobody does anything about it.

Another thing you must remember, you get a club trophy after every season just for participating. :tpuke:

“Do this by encouraging the group in your team to hang out at break and play these pushing type games.”

I’ve been reading your Articles on Heyneke Meyer lately with more and more trepidation, with every new Article coming out.

If it is not fanning on or blowing up division by intimating that he is sowing division between those who support or do not support him… and boxing the different Union supporters into those ctegories… it’s Articles and arguments like yours in this instance.

I’m afraid my stance is squarely the same as that of The East Rand Thug and Timeo.

I’m also afraid they are right, let’s call the critical Media the “Partizan Cape Biased Media”, as supported MOSTLY by the other Coastal Media fraternity… they are certainly looking for sticks to beat Heyneke Meyer with and opportunity to question his tenure!

Why not just celebrate the fact that Heyneke (in conjunction with Disco Rassie) has not put a foot wrong yet, in fact by the end of the 3rd Bokke Training camp they would have had the top 107 SA based Professional Rugby Players through their hands… getting them to buy into his (their) vision and having been much more pro-active than any SA Group of coaches before.

You also go and counter Dawie & Timeo’s arguments by way of vehement denial and smokescreening, whereas the gist of your Articles are clear… and the bias shining through like it is magnified.

Look, I also believe Heyneke Meyer is not perfect, and it would be foolish to not expect a blimp on the radar here or there… but come on… lighten up on the man!

I still think the rucking can work if you start him off as the support player from before the initial contact even takes place and the tackler has a shield. But I guess it is a case of actually having to be there first to gauge the situation

He had a specific moment in last weeks game that would have been funny if it wasnt so frustrating. Teammate made the tackle and the tackled player fell at this kid’s feet. All he had to do was to bend over and pick up the ball as the opponent was completely isolated. HE STEP BACK AWAY FROM THE TACKLED PLAYER. It is not a case that the boys really form or defend the ruck yet. I have taught my boys, but the other teams are not there yet.

For a supposedly level headed and “neutral” commentator, I reckon you have a huge blindspot in acknowledging -even to yourself – the inherent bias you have against the Bulls.

Basically, what you’re saying in this article, is that Meyer’s wisest move would be to NOT pick a Bulls captain under any circumstances.

Rather go for a guy who has up to now not even been first ,second or third choice for the Boks in his position.

Matfield is too old, Spies is too young and if Barack Obama was playing for the Bulls, he would probably not have been unifying enough in your view.

Rather than a bias in favour of the Bulls, the real tragedy here is the immense bias AGAINST any Bulls player that Meyer has any trust in.

To summarize your view: For his own sake, Heyneke should pick any captain, as long as it is not a Bulls player.

Ridiculous, my friend. Take a step out of your circle of Cape confidants and realise that the most biased guys in this country are the journalists from the Western Cape. They are the cancer that is holding us back.

Eish, maybe English being my mother tongue or something is the problem but I don’t read any attack on HM it the article at all.

The way I read it is that:

– HM admits that he is aware of the fickle SA public and that they will be watching for any sort of Bulls bias and that he will have to be careful with team selections.

– HM is looking around at possible captains coming from various provinces and gives some possible candidates

– There have been some mumblings about Matfield being brought back

So far nothing shooting HM down, only saying fact.

– Morné having his opinion that Strauss would be a good option of the possible captain because it would help with shaking the possible Bulls bias issue and that Strauss is playing good rugby. As well a reasons for not choosing the other possible captains.

Just go out and shoot every single Cape based journalist, and Bob’s your uncle.

Alternatively (if the Option 1 isn’t practical due to the expense of ammo these days), Heyneke and Jurie Roux should just make a pact that they won’t give a sh*t about what the blogs say for the next 4 years – in fact they won’t read the blogs for the next 4 years.

Then they just go out and win tests. No matter what the lunatics on the blogs say then, it will have zero effect on the Bok coaching team.

Morne and Keo and every random contributor to these blogs can rant and rave to their heart’s content, but they don’t actually have any power.

Only SARU can fire a Bok coach. And as long as the Boks are winning and the stadiums are packed, they have no grounds to do so.

So blog away, all you critics. You don’t actually have the power you think you do.

The difference between Meyer and every coach before him is that he will have a plus 80% winning ratio.

A successful team will pack the stadiums and the Boks will be ranked no.1 in the world.

While that continues, I don’t think the media will have any chance of getting him fired. Besides, if he has those kind of stats, only half the media will be against him – the southern half, and probably not even all of them.

He will get loads of good press with those kind of stats as well.

Fact is, even at the Bulls, Heyneke was often under the gun. As he always says, all that solves that is winning.

I will say categorically, that is Heyneke averages 80% with the Boks, then the Cape media can do what they want. They will be powerless.

For a supposedly level headed and “neutral” commentator, I reckon you have a huge blindspot in acknowledging -even to yourself – the inherent bias you have against the Bulls.

And I could put some random posts of Aldo and Fyndraai in here as-well not to forget Dawie of course…

Common denominator – Bulls supporters taking exception to my article.

Now if I am accused of bias in any way for writing it, what would you call these comments?

Next I will probably be accused of just trying to get hits on the site like Keo (I see his name mentioned here).

Apart from that, nice to see you GBS, Tac and Welsh.

BTW GBS, if I got paid for writing this shit you can accuse me of using smokescreens and mirrors. But like Tac says, let’s just kill all Cape journo’s and pretend that the reality of SA Rugby does not exist.

My objections are not about Morne’s position on Meyer. It’s about his position regarding the Cape fans. Instead of calling them out for their destructive demands, he wants them to be “reassured”, as not to “shatter” their expectations.

Fans making unfair demands. In the past Morne would have sided with the coach. Now he seems to be siding with the fans.

Dude, I personally am probably about the most neutral guy on this site when it comes to provincialism (except of the course the Kings), and even I could sense there was a biased undertone.

What has been enjoyable @ ruggaworld since it’s origin was the fact that we could give and take criticism and be honest with eachother.

Your writings have carried much weight in the past, but this one has been disappointing for me as well, I have also noticed your very smooth and subtle negativity towards Heyneke Meyer and his “blue” look.

Give the guy a break and be happy for SA Rugby, at least the boks are in the best hands they’ve been for a long long time.

I think supposed bias is the first thing
a new coach has to deal with.
I don’t really care whom he selects, as
long as he does it in true belief.
Top club teams were often under-represented
in provincial teams. The same goes for top
franchises in the Bok team.
There are things like combinations which a
coach presumebly takes into account.

Die Burger’s SMS columns is rife with bias
and banter against anything blue coming from
the public. (Lots of support too.)
I have only picked up praise for Heyneke’s
preparation from scribes. And some criticism
of his possible over reliance on Matfield and
FduP, but I think that was also aired north
of the Jukskei.

Reply to Morné @ 4:38 pm: Hey, don’t make this a Bulls thing… nowhere in my original comment (113) do I refer to the Bulls… not once.

It is you who now makes it a Bulls thing… at the same time tainting him with that brush… over and over and over… ad nauseam.

My point is, You and some other scribes are looking to fire shots and find fault with Meyer, conjure up ghosts of division where there is no need to do so.

I’m simply saying… and asking… that you look at the glass half full in stead of half empty, to stop intimating that he’s dividing the nation, when it’s guys like you attemting to do just that or having that nett effect.

You know and you know damn well that I normally appreciate your Articles and contributions, but on this issue, you need a re-think.

In fact, be honest… you’ve been exposed to coaching… what comes natural, in fact what is inevitable for a coach to do?

You naturally do 2 Things:

1. You pick Assistants you are comfortable with and whom you know and trust… so check that box, it’s now done and dusted…

2. You pick a captain whom you know, who you trust, who you are familiar with, who you think shares your vision, whom you think has the right captaincy material and ability… so the Captaincy is a very personal choice for Heyneke to make and is his choice, we have to trust him on that!

For once in our rugby lives ALL the Franchise supporters are supposed to be happy and should be united… they have a National coach with the following attributes:

1. Who has coached in the Southern Cape
2. Who has coached in the Western Cape (Heyneke was Super Rugby Assitant coach at the Stormers years ago)
3. Who has coached in Bulls Country
4. He has been Assistant Bokke coach under Mallett
5. He brings youth through (proven ability to do so)
6. He impliments and backs structures which work
7. Players worship the ground he walks on
8. He is innovative and fresh
9. He talks well, understands well, reasons well… in fact he is a clever dude, something we have not had for 4 years
10. He seems to have convinced Jurie Roux and SARU to back him 110%
11. He is open and approachable
12. He knows what he wants
13. He values EVERY Test, not just the World Cup

… I could go on…

But the gist of it is… what more do you want in order not to make a negative stance your point of departure?

Man, I sit with them on weekends in the Press Box… and I’m as blue as they come (hell I wear my Bulls shirt right in the Press Box, whether at Loftus or the Coke-Tin or wherever) but their comments there and then in that same Press Box makes me look like a very paler shade of blue, I tell you.

One has to be able to criticise your own team and give praise where due in others… one has to be objective and not blinded by bias.

Lets take a different tack. Put aside all allegations of bias, we all have that. Acknowledged.

When Jake White was coach the Bulls fans and media agitated for Gary Botha’s inclusion. What was White supposed to do? Select a “neutral” as captain to make the fans happy, or stick to his first choice.

We know what he did and we know that it was the right choice, but if we parallel to today, then it seems Morne wants the coach to make the other choice.

I promoted Adriaan as the best player and leader first, with him being a neutral and the obvious advantages second. Hell even twist that around if you want and argue both merits being the challenges Meyer faces picking the best guys first, and doing that while making friends.

In other words, in rugby terms call my suggestion stupid or absurd and we can have a rugby debate.

If we want to debate SA Rugby and its challenges then tell me I am wrong saying Meyer will be judged because of his relationship with the Bulls and how picking a guy on rugby terms will not help the second, most insignificant non rugby (but still relevant) cause.

I never objected to Strauss because I have no objection to him. I object to the fact that you expect the coach to select players in order to placate a specific group of fans.

Here is your sentence:

Choosing a captain, and a fairly neutral one at that in the form of Adriaan Strauss who is not only a great leader, but playing some of the best rugby of his life justifying selection above captaincy for the England series, will go a long way in building trust amongst the players irrespective of which union they represent.

Neutral comes up before his abilities and the whole section after the last comma is about how Meyer needs to demonstrate his non-bias.

The theme of the article is that Meyer needs to take actions to prove his non-bias to the fans. Are you included in this group of fans or not?.

I had a St9 boy who was very small and everyone said he is too tiny to play 1st team for Affies – that I worked with.

It was much easier than your situation – as I had 3 DVD’s to show him how he ‘bang’ he is.

And even then it took replay after replay also in slow-motion before he tentatively agreed. And only THEN could I work an his mentality resulting in him being ‘bang’.

Once those mental-programs were ID’ed we could start with – together – ‘design’ new/better/appropriate alternatives. Once we had several options that if-&-when applied would result in him being more effective and contradicting the coaches perspective off him as a ‘bang’-player. Did we move to physical exercises.

Hahaha I literally bilksemed him on the nose (lightly I have to say) until he stop flinching and closing his eyes on-or-before contact.

Then we IDed what he could do in practices – to test and adjust his ‘bang-geit’.

The next game he scored 3 tries – created oodles of space on the outside and made 2 tries by drawing contacts and made brilliant late passes resulting in tries. And all including the coaches “hailed” the “new” player (hehehe except from the parents I received fokkol credit) and the next year he was the main points-scorer and ‘banker’ in the backline – tiny and all.

O, and I was unfairly assisted by the fact that one Christian Cullen was also deemed TOO small in the beginning of his career – not withstanding the fact that he was a brilliant ‘baller’!!! Part of his ‘home-work’ was watching Cullen you-tube clips as much as possible!

Hope this – helps – in what IS possible.

Hope also you realise that even with an older boy I had to follow incremental steps !!!

Deon – Aldo’s Bulletjie rugby progress is brilliant – shyte I completely forgot about that – I used similar ones with my Bulletjie boys aged 5 at the time.

I – now – (thanks Aldo) remember very clearly the standing on knees face each other and tackling (was piss funny) and shuffling later and tackling (which was even more hilarious) ! But remember I had to work with Brand and get HIM to believe he CAN tackle effectively – and he did eventually tackled like a demon

Reply to DavidS @ 8:09 pm:
I don’t see what the fuss is about, that’s all. I’ve read the arti again and only see the fact that HM will most likely pick up flack because no coach gets away without getting any.

That’s the gist of it. Anybody who thinks otherwise is dreaming. Which sector of the population it comes from is immaterial.

Ollie you will love this – it’s as if it’s right on cue on Heyneke having to battle shit that has nothing to do with Bok results but off-field petty kak and how franchises/unions in SA always seem to want to work against Bok rugby…

Point that is interesting for me is the fact that its the first time ever franchises are now demanding this, and highlights the point Ollie made earlier how we just cannot seem to work together in SA Rugby for the greater cause – being Bok rugby.

I have had a few of those but much older – still have :?
Confidence in contact is what is lacking – believing that it ain’t so bad going into contact and to do that takes time and small steps.

others have commented on ways to get there and agree with them, I had one that for months could not go into contact and one day in a contact session i (as always) gave him the ball to run into contact again and again and one day he busted through and put a bigger guy on his arse. you could see it in his face that something clicked in his head and since that day he became a crash baller! Now the fooker does not pass and tries to run over everyone

it is mental and you can’t force it out of him, it takes time and no amount of pushing will change it! He must find out for himself that it is not as bad as he thinks it is. Tackling and taking contact is 10% technique and 90% mental imo. hence no spies for me as bok captain :fishing: and no it is not because he is a bull but because he is useless at tackling!

All through this thread Morne has accused me of bias whilst I have taken care not to make such allegations about him.

I have freely admitted my own bias whilst he has vehemently denied that he has any.

GBS has admitted his own bias and those of some Bulls journalists. Boertjie has also met some journalists but the only biased one he can recall is Quintus van Rooyen.

It seems that bias only exists up north. You guys are all rugby knowledge and we are all bias and sensitive about it. Correct?

Bias off course makes you blind to your own.

Or is it perhaps rather rooted in a fear that the Bulls are about to take over SA rugby?

More ANGST than fear.

Last year there were allegations that certain players made the team because the ‘senior players’ were in control. As it happened the ‘undeserving’ players were all Bulls and the senior players allegedly in charge were Matfield and du Preez.
I thought it a little absurd considering the presence of Smit as leader and Burger and de Villiers as fellow members of the senior players club.

But the allegations were not absurd to those that made them…..

They were very real……….

A very real ANGST that the Bulls may be in control of proceedings.

Now I understand better. The article and many posts make much more sense to me.

Morne, ollie, oom boer, JT, the problem I, and timeo and all the rest that commented have, is not the suppossed Bulls bias. We all know and agree that the perception is there. I mean he picked some of the best in his coaching team, and nine of them, but all the focus is on the 4 Bulls coaches.

My problem is this Morne, as a suppossed neutral blogger, you have the privilage of people reading your articles and for the most part taking them serious. I have allways listened to what you have to say, and allthough in the past we have argued points for hours, I have allways had healthy respect for what you have to say.

But in this article and a few others over the last weeks, you add fuel to the fire of the suppossed bias. You call heynecke powder blue, you want him to pick a neutral captain, not who he might want, and you want him to pick this captain, not on form or leadership (yes I know he has both, but that wasnt the first argument for picking him), you want him picked to allay fears of Blueboks, that exist in the Cape. Just as he was forced to say in the media that he pick the other player if a bulls player and someone else was 50/50.

This bothers me a lot, cos it seems that we might end up with only 2 Bulls players, which I dont mind BRING ON THE CC, in the bokteam, and still he’d be accussed of bulls bias.

You have the oppertunity to not be part of the ranting masses, which is what ruggaworld has allways been, but I fear you have joined them, and will continue running the campaign untill the evil from the north have been cut to size.

If that indeed is so, then I agree with Timeo, be afraid,, be very afraid.

And the main drivers of this are the Cape media and Cape rugby supporting media.

If you look at some of the things normally intelligent restrained bloggers like The Bounce and David Van Der Merwe are writing I shudder to think at what the plebians are thinking… it is more like the hysteria one would expect had Heyneke Meyer said “Ag nee wat, ek dink nie ek gaan enige k@***ers in die span kies nie”…

I fail to see how that excuses what you have done or justifies it or even acts as a post that is opposed to what I have said here.

In that same thread I also accused you of being biased and playing to the provincialist plebians…

I see you have still not answered my question about the Bok coaches but given the hysterical attack you have displayed against everything that has in any way contended a bias from you or even directed at the Cape “fan” base and media cabal I am not surprised at all.

In fact if you read the posts not one of Timeo, Welsh, Tacticus, Aldo or me have displayed any hysterics or emotions is response to your posts or articles.

Morne warned against provincial bias
(which is always rife and often not healthy)
and made a suggestion as to how Heyneke can
counter it.
That was all I read in the thread.
I dunno what caused this oversensitive
PMS reaction.
:whistling:

“Name any journo, and everyone on here with the exception of perhaps one or two will highlight a certain degree of bias they have – even the Cape ones.”

What’s the meaning of the: “-even the Cape ones.” at the end?

Did you put it like that to say that it would be more unusual for a Cape journalist to admit a bias?
Or is harder for a Cape journalist to admit bias?
Or are Cape journalists more neutral and as such the admission would be an exception to the rule?

Choosing a captain, and a fairly neutral one at that in the form of Adriaan Strauss who is not only a great leader, but playing some of the best rugby of his life justifying selection above captaincy for the England series, will go a long way in building trust amongst the players irrespective of which union they represent.

YOU MORNE personally said that the choice of Adriaan Strauss as skipper would “build trust” amongst the players… irrespective of union, suggesting that there may be unions where the choice of skipper would not build trust and also

YOU MORNE SAID… not as a perception but AS AN OPINION OF MORNE THE CAPE JOURNO that Adriaan Strauss is a “neutral” choice… suggesting that for YOU MORNE PERSONALLY there is a provincialist and non neutral choice…

Choosing a captain, and a fairly neutral one at that in the form of Adriaan Strauss

YOU are calling him a “neutral” choice. Not me, not Timeo, not the Bulls cabal of which I am now lumped together with… YOU. The opposite is that YOU MORNE are saying there is a non neutral choice available.

Nothing stupid

Nothing strange

Nothing unusual

YOUR words

Not mine.

Second

…will go a long way in building trust amongst the players irrespective of which union they represent.

The choice of your believed to be neutral skipper (regardless of his other capabilities and form) will assuage the distrust of players regardless of unions they represent… the opposite of what you said is that if Strauss is not chosen the players, regardless of union they represent (haha!) will distrust the coach.

Simple

Easy to understand

Again

Your words

Not mine

No spin

No interpretation or anything

This is stuff you said… not me

not Timeo

Not Aldo

Not Tacticus

No pink jerseys to make fun of anywhere in sight

YOU said it…

_________________________________________________________

Your hysterical reaction disconnected from the contention I initially made speaks volumes.

You refuse to address what I have said. You try to change the direction of the conversation.

And again: I endorse everything Morne
wrote.
I read papers.
I read SMS’s from stupid rugby people.
Heyneke has some climbing to do to
convince them.
Not selecting Spies as captain can go
some way towards that.
But it won’t affect my loyalty if he does.

I’ll go to BJJ and pretend every black belt I grapple is Morne telling me that Heyneke must choose a neutral captain or he’s biased… and I’ll go looking for a blue teeshirt and download Steve’s special Bulle song and get some horns… after all I want “maak allie Bulle Bokke”…

You have never answered Timeo, Aldo or Welsh or me on us saying we never questioned his abilities as a rugby player Morne. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US SAID IT EXPRESSLY.

What we questioned was your contention about him being neutral…

You said he’s neutral… you now back it up as fact. You’re admitting your own bias.

Neutral to whom? Clearly to you as you have now stated that he IS neutral, ergo YOU believe he is neutral… according to you he is neutral.

And as I suggest… what would be the opposite… that there is a non neutral choice for you?

Public perception IS NOT what I am talking about AT ALL… it is YOUR perception… NOTE – I INTENTIONALLY IN THESE LAST FEW POSTS DID NOT EVER MENTION PUBLIC PERCEPTION. Instead I used your own words which did not once use public perception. I especially quoted your own words which were NOT referring to public perception but were clearly your own opinionated viewpoints. See? Your obfuscating and smoke screening again… smoke and mirror refusal to address the actual accusation that your own words ARE biased when one analyses them.

In one instance I made it clear that you disavowed public opinion and relied on player perception of distrust… NOT public perception of coach bias. See how you are intentionally misinterpreting what I say?

On Twitter

I don’t read all but there were some nasty responses from WP supporters I did see…

Anyway far more interesting my best friend’s here from India and her husband and I share a passion about warfare theory so we’ll have a look at whether a changed outcome of the Battle of Kadesh would have affected warfare as dramatically as it’s eventual outcome did. Or maybe whether a release of the reserve corps in the southern pincer during the Battle of Kursk could have allowed the Germans to retake to a strategic offensive.

Why is there such a fear? Who is fueling it?
——–
The uninformed “followers” who don’t have
SA rugby at heart. The Joe Soaps, because
they think because they have arseholes, they
also have valid opinions.
The scribes are not fuelling it, rather
defending Heyneke AFAIK.

Dealing with your first question first I think you know the obvious answer.

It started when his all-Bulls management team with the exception of Rassie was announced. This was amplified with wanting to bring Vic back out of retirement, Danie, Bakkies and FDP back from overseas – I don’t think I need to mention the obvious trend.

Before that, nobody had a problem if I go back to social media comments (which I read daily).

Your second question – if I had the answer I would have written about it not only now, but years ago.

Why is there such a ‘fear’? 80 years of provincialism buddy. Personally I think it is stupid. But I have read and heard how the average supporter in SA will choose his team (union/province) over the Boks. That is the reality we deal with…

It is Bulls/Sharks/WP before Boks – if your team is too Blue, too stripey or too fishy I have a problem with that if I don’t support that team.

We talk our own province’s players up all the time, believing they ‘deserve’ a green and gold jersey before the next guy.

Once you go too much to the one side, the 4 or 5 other sides flip their lid – even more so if you are as dominant as the Bulls are.

Which brings me to my original objection to Morne’s article.
He proposed that the coach make the adjustments to placate them.
That I believe is harmful for the Boks. Not intentional but non the less harmful.

He wanted to use last year’s team because of little time. All very sensible. Only not to some. And the scribes with influence should act more responsibly and explain this to the fans.
Not fuel the flames further (no attack on Morne here. lets please not go down that route again).

Did anyone mention that a team with Vic and Fourie and Danie and Bakkies will also most likely have contained Burger and de Villiers and Habana and Bismarck and Beast and Jannie and Heinrich?

Did anyone consider that perhaps he wanted Matfield as interim captain because the obvious candidate, Burger is injured?

Heyneke has lots on his plate.
Yes, I think he wanted Jacques Nienaber
as defensive coach.
Saru did not help by waiting to appoint him.
Stormers are under lots of pressure to win
something.

The major question as I see is:
Does he start building the next Bok team
against the Poms – lose and have the shit
flying? Or does he rely on the old hands
(of which some are not playing top level)
– lose and have the shit flying?

At some stage he will have to bite the bullet
– when? Poms? Four Nations? EOYT?

Morne, seriously? Heynecke’s all Bulls management bar Rassie? Please go do some homework, read the full 9 man management team, excluding Rassie, then return and tell me only 5 of the 10 are exBulls (including Rassie now). Then go on to tell me that before heynecke, none of the above were Bulls men, so that makes them Heynecke’s men, then try and persuade me again that it is an all Bulls team.

Remember, these ten are only the new appointees, not manager etc that staid with the boks.

So back to my original point, I know, as do welsh, david and Timeo (allthough I am apparently not as balanced :soek: ), that there is a perception of Bulls bias, BUT, a really BIG But, you as a respected Columnist, or blogger, or whatever you wish to call yourself, have a responsibility to point out that there is no Bulls bias, not have it pointed out by unbalanced bloggers like myself. You have the responsibility to call for unity behind the bok coach, not to ask him to pick neutral players, but to support whoever he picks, as long as it is on merit, NOT, accusse him of bias before he has picked his first ever bok team.

Do you now understand my problem with your column, or should I draw blue, unbalanced pictures for you? Oh no, you wont understand that, I’ll draw it in tronkvoel blou en wit strepe.

Ja maar Boer, I have allways supported the bok coach. Even the helium voiced clown. Yet last year when I gave him my full support, I was stupid, this year when I give Heynecke my full support, its because Im a Bull.

Cant be further from the truth, I am on record ( more than once, might I add) that I would love for the boks to stop picking Bulls players, as it impedes our CC campaign, and also our total demolition of all other SA teams, so as you rightly say, I support the Bulls before the boks. I do not allow a coach a grace period at the Bulls, as I do at the Boks, so why start now.

Heynecke hurt the Bulls by taking all our best coaches, even if he brought them here, with him. So all saying I support him because of Bulls bias, are just silly and do not know me very well.

I do however think he is the best coach in SA and does not deserve to be called Bulls bias before even picking a team. He deserves a chance to build, and he deserves suppossed neutral collumnists, as Morne and yourself are, support, and not to be shown on his problems, before he has even started.

Rather focus on the good he has done (such as picking 31 stormers for his training camp, MORE THAN ANY OTHER TEAM, INCLUDING THE BULLS) and rally support behind him. I cannot do this as I am een ogig blou, as Dawie mentioned before, maar fok julle kan at least.

Nee morne, you should correct the hordes, as you know better. It is your responsibility to correct those fools and not fuel their fire.

I never once said that you criticised the bok coach, and if I did I apologise, what you have however done, is just as bad. You have not done anything to point out that the hordes or masses or whatever, are wrong. Even though you are in a privilaged position to actually have access to the bok coach and management team.

You have not once come out and written an article that stated catagorrically that those fears of Blue boks are unfounded. nooo, it is much easier to ride the train.

You know what, I have reas your article 5 times now, and have not once read that even though the perception of Bulls bias exists, this is only a perception. Not once have I read that the media have a responsibility in stopping or discrediting this perception. All I read is Heynecke must stop this unfounded perception, by picking ‘neutral’ players.

So if I understand correctly, the media have created a false perception, yet it is up to Heynecke to correct this, by picking a media team? Why didnt you just say you wanted to be a bok coach?

I apologise for my poor spelling, I are but a bulls boer, met n baard, and struggle with brits.

I can however say I have the blou bulle cd, a beard, and are liking to be afrikaans and havings a bulls helmet met moerse horings. So I guess once again I prove the stereotype of the bulls fan correct.

There are worse things however, such as proving the wetlook poefters stereotype correct…

1. On the neutrality issue you specifically disavowed reliance on the alleged public perception and expressly told me that it was your view not that of the public. YOU were expressing YOUR view, not representing the public view.

2. On the second issue YOUR phrase is that the selection of a “neutral” captain will assure the players trust the new coach… not public perception but PLAYER PERCEPTION OF DISTRUST.

You have STILL not responded to either contentions.

But surely in the post isolation era the only coaches who has been accused of provincialism were Ian MacIntosh and John Williams (in both cases understandable).

Kitch should legitimately have been accused
Markgraaf not
Mallet not
Carel not
Viljoen not
Straueli chose everyone so there could be no accusations there
Not Jake
Not Piet

It’s the same is your nonsensical contention that coaches get fired for offield occurences and are not judged on their performance onfield.

It’s the same is your nonsensical contention that coaches get fired for offield occurences and are not judged on their performance onfield.
———
Do I understand this correctly?
Markies got fired for an off-field occurence.
Mallett got fired for an off-field occurence.

The coaches’ firing for offiled transgressions only came about because of their poor onfield performance.

Look at ALL OF THEM.

Nagapie lost a series in NZ and got fired.
Markgraaf became the first coach to lose a series to NZ in SA ever and THEN only came the phone call thing.
Mallett went from 1998 heroics to 1999 horror of 28-0 to NZ and only then did offield transgressions catch up with him.
If the Boks had won in 2003 Straueli would have gotten away with Kamp Staaldraad

The reliance on “offield transgressions” are just an expression of the frustration with onfield lack of performance.

Aside from Jake White, every single Bok coach who has gotten fired has been fired AT A TIME WHEN HIS ONFIELD PERFORMANCE WAS POOR… the offield performances was just a way to find a negotiating ploy out of the contract.

Jake White is a different kettle of fish because in contrast to the ones whose teams were playing poorly he INTENTIONALLY BURNED HIS BRIDGES WITH SARU.

As an example… if Piet’s side had been playing poorly when he had his immoral incident with the slattern in his car in PE you can be guaranteed he’d have been looking for a new job. Instead people forgave that because the team was performing reasonably well.

You can be assured if Jake White had NOT burned his bridges with SARU the public would have forgiven 2006 and wanted him back at the Boks.

So

Mallett, Markgraaf, Straueli all fired for offield transgressions BUT

how were the Boks performing at the time?

piss poor

The “offield” transgressions was just a mask – the poor performance of the Boks was the actual reason for their dismissal.

In any case

Out of ten coaches you can in any case only name two who were certainly fired for offield transgressions…. but offield transgressions that came about due to poor performance on the field.

In effect in those cases Mallett and Straueli and Markgraaf needed to be negotiated out of contracts that still had a ways to go. It would have been idiotic to allow the contracts to run their course – the “phone call” and “tickets” and the “Staaldraad” issues were convenient excuses to get rid of coaches whose teams were performing poorly and needed to be replaced as a matter of urgency because under their guidance the Boks were crashing and burning and embarrassing us as a nation…

The question is

Would Markgraaf had been fired for that phone call if we’d clobbered the All Blacks?

Would Mallett have been fired for saying tickets are too expensive if we won the 1999 RWC and 3N?

Would Straueli have been fired if by some miracle Staaldraad worked and the team won RWC 2003?

In all cases the answer MUST be an unequivocal NO.

Ergo

Coaches are NOT “just fired for offield occurences”… the basis of poor onfield performances need to be there too in each case… because in truth the South African public is very forgiving to a successful coach no matter what his off field shenanigans.